People are still using the WMD's not found in Iraq as a reason we should not have gone to war. Why does it matter when there were weapons at one time, Saddam did use them to kill 300,000 of his own people and he refused inspections for 11 years?

Top Opinion

You miss the point. Other despots have used wmd's to kill their own people, but we don't invade their country because of that.

Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein ONCE HAD Wmd's (sold to him by Ronald Reagan and the first useless Bush) there were none present in Iraq at the time George W Bush was trying to link the attacks of 9/11 with Iraq in order to justify the invasion that he had been planning since the week he was handed the Presidency. The weapons inspectors---the ones actually IN IRAQ at the time---told Bush for MONTHS that NO WMD's existed. But that wasn't good enough. Bush had been looking for a way to justify an invasion of Iraq since February of 2001, 7 months before 9/11. 9/11 became his justification. Justification to start a needless war, with a country that posed no threat to us, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no WMD's.

1) The threat of WMD's was given as the reason for overthrowing Iraq. Regardless of whether you think this is a valid reason or not, this is a fact. Since the weapons were not found, the justification used by the administration is undermined. Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation is a war crime.

2) Saddam did not refuse inspections when the war began. Bush threw the weapons inspectors out to begin "Shock and Awe". What you are parroting is a deliberate rewriting of history to justify war crimes.

The only weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein ever had were those given to him by good buddy Don Rumsfeld way back in the Reagan Administration, years prior to Desert Storm. He had no WMD's when George H. W. Bush was there, and no WMDs at any time since. The fact that the bush administration went to such extreme lengths to falsify intelligent reports would seem to confirm that there was not even any real suggestion, much less evidence, of any actual threat.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

The one person who should be happiest about the publication of Bob Woodward's new book is surely former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. After insisting that President Bush had begun planning the Iraq invasion soon after Sept. 11, Clarke was denounced by the White House and on the floor of the Senate as a lying, disgruntled profiteer. But with Woodward's undisputed revelations that Iraq War planning began almost immediately after 9/11, Clarke has been vindicated as a truth-teller. It is now the White House that must explain why the public was deliberately lied to about the war.

Clarke and Woodward are not the first to confirm that the invasion of Iraq was being planned soon after or even before Sept. 11.

You miss the point. Other despots have used wmd's to kill their own people, but we don't invade their country because of that.

Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein ONCE HAD Wmd's (sold to him by Ronald Reagan and the first useless Bush) there were none present in Iraq at the time George W Bush was trying to link the attacks of 9/11 with Iraq in order to justify the invasion that he had been planning since the week he was handed the Presidency. The weapons inspectors---the ones actually IN IRAQ at the time---told Bush for MONTHS that NO WMD's existed. But that wasn't good enough. Bush had been looking for a way to justify an invasion of Iraq since February of 2001, 7 months before 9/11. 9/11 became his justification. Justification to start a needless war, with a country that posed no threat to us, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no WMD's.